If you do not know about memes, this book presents a worthy introduction
to the theory of memetics. So what describes a meme?

Humans have the ability to imitate and can copy ideas, habits, fads, languages,
skills, etc. These all describes memes, a term first coined by Richard Dawkins
in 1976 in his book The
Selfish Gene. Similar to genes, memes describe replicators, competing
to get into as many brains as possible, and this memetic competition has fashioned
our minds and culture, just as natural selection has designed our bodies.
The theory proposes that we exist as the product of genes and memes and we
have become the machinery for their survival.

Susan Blackmore presents several interesting questions about how big brains,
languages, altruistic behavior, and the idea of self came about, and bravely
hypothesizes answers from a meme's point of view. This all makes a compelling
case for the workings of human society and the machinery of future meme machines
as they evolve from computers and the internet.

This book does contain many flaws in my opinion, but none that should prevent
one from studying it.

For example, I hope her peers will forgive her provincial writing style,
for her thesis bears important, indeed, provocative questions about the power
of imitation, in spite of the grammar which seems more fit for Jr. High school
level reading than for a scientific thesis.

I also have a semantic beef with the idea of genes and memes as replicators.
The suffix "-or" by definition indicates a person or thing performing
the action expressed. But single genes and memes do not replicate themselves;
they describe the things that get replicated. Yet Blackmore admits
that genes come as a result of "the exquisite cellular machinery for
copying DNA" [p. 101], and "the replicator (the thing that gets
copied)." [p.198], and "memes can operate only by using the brains
created by genes."

Perhaps we should use a more precise term such as "replica" or
"replicant" (to borrow a term from the movie "Blade Runner").
Not that the use of replicator distracts from the central idea, mind you,
but if one aims toward a working theory of memes, we should use as precise
a language as possible to avoid confusion. Nor does it mean that memes cannot
become replicators, for perhaps a few exist already as memeplexes. Corporations,
for example, copy other memes such as automobiles, clothes, books, etc. However,
corporations do not copy themselves (although they can split into other corporations).
If we ever create robots that can replicate themselves, then they would serve
as true replicators, and only then should we refer to them as replicators.
A self replicating robot might also divorce itself completely from DNA. I
say this because memes and robots (built by humans) require DNA for their
survival. If all DNA in the world died, the memes and robots would have no
way spread themselves. In this sense, memes represent a phenotype of DNA.
A self replicating robot, however, would serve as a new order of independent
replicator.

I cringed about her idea that "the answer is to have faith in the memetic
view. . ." This simply plays into the dangers of beliefs which she previously
pointed out. Those who believe in Buddhism, no doubt, will find Blackmore's
thesis revealing, while Christians will find themselves embarrassed (and rightfully
so).

In spite of these flaws, the book presents valid questions and possible solutions.
As a memeplex herself, Blackmore's theory of memetics explains many aspects
of human nature better than any rival theory. In this, she has succeeded to
present an interesting if not viable theory of memetics. Only future scientific
testing will prove her right or wrong.

A few quotes from the book:

Imagine a world full of brains, and far more memes than can possibly find
homes. Which memes are more likely to find a safe home and get passed on again?

Memetics provides a new approach to the evolution of language in which we
apply Darwinian thinking to two replicators, not one. On this theory, memetic
selection, as well as genetic selection, does the work of creating language.

Digital copying is far more accurate than analogue, and genes have certainly
adopted the 'get digital' strategy. I suggest that language has done the same.
By making discrete words instead of a continuum of sound, copying becomes
more accurate.

We humans have more instincts than other species, not fewer.

A religion that promotes large families will, assuming vertical memetic transmission,
produce more babies to grow up in that religion than one that promotes small
families. Religious memes therefore become an important manipulator of genetic
success. Catholicism's taboo against birth control has been extremely effective
in filling the world with millions of Catholics who bring up their children
to believe that condoms and the pill are evil, and that God wants them to
have as many children as possible.

Education aside, this all leads to the paradoxical thought that the more
sex magazines, e-mail sex sites, and sex shops are available, the lower birth
rates are likely to be. The sale of sex in modern societies is not about spreading
genes. Sex has been taken over by the memes.

Some [controlled experiments] have shown that people with the strongest religious
faith were less likely to recover from acute illness.

Yet she [Mother Teresa] steadfastly maintained her Catholic opposition to
the one thing that would have helped them most of all-- control over their
own reproductive lives. Whatever we may think about how much she really helped
the starving people of Calcutta there is no doubt that her behaviour effectively
spread Catholic memes by using the altruism trick.

Not only is God invisible but he 'moves in mysterious ways'. The mystery
is part of the whole package and to be admired in its own right. This untestability
protects the memes from rejection.

Brain development is under genetic control and it is known that some brains
are more prone to religious belief and experience than others. For example,
people with unstable temporal lobes are more likely to report mystical, psychic
and religious experiences, and to believe in supernatural powers, than those
with stable temporal lobes.

Happiness has been found to depend more on having a life that matches your
skills to what you are doing than to having a rich lifestyle.

The self is a great protector of memes, and the more complex the memetic
society in which a person lives, the more memes there are fighting to get
inside the protection of the self.

There is no doubt that having a clear sense of identity, a positive self-image
and good self-esteem are associated with psychological health, but this is
all about comparing a positive sense of self with a negative one. When we
ask what good is done by having a sense of self at all, the answer is not
obvious.

With constant memetic bombardment our lives and our selves become more and
more stressful and complicated. . . The unhappiness, desperation, and psychological
ill-health of many modern people may reveal just this.